About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 4, San Francisco 3, Llc 3, Abc 2, Mr. Shaw 2, Mike 1, Derek Evans 1, Mike Leon 1, Johnson 1, Jerry 1, Carmen Chu 1, Mennently 1, I. 1, Alex Montiel 1, Christine 1, Folsom Fair 1, Oakland 1, San Jose City 1, Pen Al Tease 1, Massy 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 3, 2012
    4:00 - 4:30am PDT  

4:00am
cans commission of staff and at that time we asked and generously received a sis tense which provided a recommendation which came back before this commission. that's the only one that comes to the top of my head. i don't remember. i think there may have been others but that's the one that comes to my mind. speaker: okay so in light of all this let's put that over. i apologize especially to you mr. shaw for bringing this up now. the next item on the agenda -- do we take public comment for
4:01am
holding it over? okay public comment: doctor occur i was one of the whistle blowers that reported miss appropriations from the patient gift fund. mr. shaw is accurate here that deputy city attorney jerry made an error in his memo, instruction al memo and it's easy to make that error because we had two whistle blower complaints, one a conflict of city interest and one miss appropriation of patient funds from the gift fund and mr. freight mixed those up and this request for documents related to a complaint of the gift fund, miss appropriations does
4:02am
not have anything to do with conflict of interest. speaker: war field, i am very disappointed that at nine forty at night we learn that something that was known at the beginning of the meeting is cause for skipping an item on the agenda. perhaps the chair thought that he would be reading mr. shaws letter and analyzing it some time during the meeting. from what i know, i doubt it. my sense of him is that he's attempting to be thorough and fair so i'm very disappointed that this couldn't have been announced at the very beginning of the meeting. thank
4:03am
you. speaker: can i get public comment on my own item, two minutes of your time? speaker: i would like to apologize to you on behalf of mr. weener. you were dragged down here and thrown into over time when it could have been avoided. now potentially the city controller may have misled you on flex time since she is not being paid time and a half for whatever her hourly salary is whether that's fifty dollars an hour or eighty dollars an hour. soup vicar weener was quite per /terbed that cities employees time was waited in front of the sunshine task force when respondents wouldn't show up.
4:04am
where is san jose city attorney? how does that work? speaker: she was going to appear by phone. maybe that's who was trying to call. speaker: yeah so because your proposed regulations say that you are going to transfer these cases to another jurisdiction as they come up i would like to remind the deputy city attorney, his name escapes me at the moment, that while you may have one precedent in front of you this doesn't mean that it was handled in an ethical manner. you may want to this time refer the whole case to the oakland or berkley or san jose ethics commission and let them hear the complaint. you
4:05am
shouldn't be involved in it. you are too close to your own executive director to hear and adjudicate this matter without a perception of a conflict of interest. when you deliberate this when you put it on your next agenda i'm going to be back here asking you to put it on another jurisdiction so i can handleage ethical point of view on both of these cases. speaker: i believe i heard a suggestion that the city attorney provide the precedent for your hearing a case involving discipline of your own
4:06am
executive director. if the city attorney provides you with that information i would hope it's made available to the public as well. i think it's important. thank you. speaker: johnson i quickly wanted to say that um, please take into consideration that it's not just a member of the staff. this is more of the executive director who is managing all of the staff and i think that that leads to a bit of a conflict of interest for you to decide to dismiss it or not and to send it over to a different ethics commission. the city attorneys office i'll say is technically supposed to have ethical walls, fire walls, but there was some question as to whether our own deputy city attorney for the task force could help us with
4:07am
some of these ethics commission matters. that leads me to believe that there could be a conflict. i encourage you to send it to a different jurisdiction based on the fact that it is a department head managerial employee. thank you. speaker: david, i do recall the case and i don't actually recall the case but i do recall the executive director, the oakland commission did perform this kind of recommendation on a prior manner when the staff was conflicted and i think that's the case that was referred to. with regard to these two items i believe they are properly before you. i do believe that you followed and the staff followed the procedures for what happens whether it's a conflict and
4:08am
until we have rights to handle sunshine refederals these appear to have been handled consistent with the regulars for handling investigation matters so it appears to be procedurally you seem to be in a good place and we'll deal with that in future meeting. thank you. speaker: one other thing i'd like to clarify for the public who think that i decided at the beginning that we were going to move this and didn't notify you until now, that is not the case. i did not have an opportunity to look at it until the break realizing how sub stan tiff it was i think i need to study it more and i apologize again for the delay but to me that's a better course than to do it on the fly so again my apologizes.
4:09am
the next item on the agenda is closed session. do we need a vote to hold it over? we're holding it over, right? we're good. okay. the next item on the agenda is a closed session how pursuent to section c dash section [indiscernible] can you anticipate how long this will take so we can judge if we should stay for those of us interested in the following items. speaker: i was going to
4:10am
say three hours but i don't think it should take long. is there a motion for me to close session? all in favor, speaker: we're back if public session. the complaints are confidential. speaker: did i do that wrong? speaker: is there a
4:11am
motion? speaker: so moved speaker: second? public comment? all in favor, i. any opposed? hearing none. the commission entered into a settlement in the matter of alex torque principle ground floor public affairs in the amount of six thousand dollars. order will be published to the commission website tomorrow and the commission also decided that a matter would be referred to another department agency that will handle the issue in a different matter. the next item on the agenda is admitted for the commissions regular meeting of july
4:12am
twenty third. actually that's going to be held over speaker: can you explain what the matter will be held over to? speaker: i've been told no. i'm trying to figure out what was -- speaker: this is discussion on the matter that's confidential under the charter so the commission referred that to another force agency and the chair announced that the details of that matter remain confidential under the charter speaker: and will continue to be so per mennently? speaker:
4:13am
until the ethics commission issues probable cause speaker: which could still happen based on the refederal to the outside agency speaker: unlike /hreuly and the other matter will be posted tomorrow speaker: looking forward to it. thanks. speaker: just one thing i wanted to highlight. just another well another nice improvement on the website would e recalling task force is a new way to access information that's on the website. it's already on the website but in order to do searchs that will
4:14am
compose not only reports tailored to what the user is trying to do research on but charts and graphs that are very probable in giving people visuals that support the information that they are looking for. i wanted to highlight that we continue to work to improve the access of information by the public various ways to manipulate the dat /taeu that we have in our possession. speaker: commissioner sudden: i'm sorry i know it's late. this is information not in our
4:15am
possession and people who haven't filed their form seven hundreds has provided public with getting this information and there's also the fact that hundreds of other people did manage to do their forms at some person inconvenience and sacrifice and i think it's better that everyone was held to the requirement to do it. i appreciate the responsibilities that staff have at a challenging time and i realize we couldn't do everything in cadillac fashion but i wonder whether we could be more imagine /tphau a list and putting it in our website if we haven't done that, sharing it
4:16am
at a meeting asking people if they have thoughts about what we can do about it using the public value. you may want to remind us about what we've done to raise these people or follow-up with them or give a list to the mayor and the people who do appointments to these folks and reappointments to other folks and i know we've talked about this before but it might be helpful on the record to tell us what has been done and for all of us to think about what we can do that could reinforcelet seriousness of this without putting unreasonable expectations on the staff that's spread thin. speaker: based on my prior directions to the staff i understood that because of resources no non filers were
4:17am
being turned over and state laws and authorities are clearer than ours is because this is a state law. however, this wasn't being done so i failed to follow-up and make sure that my directions were being followed and in fact, the practice is to send a letter to filing and then to send a second follow-up letter. when the second letters came from my signature it was already mid-august and i thought it was done months ago and that's my failure to follow through on that and i'm taking full responsibility for that but the practice should be and in the future will be that first we
4:18am
send people late letters and we can assign them up to ten dollars a day for being late. beyond a certain amount of time beyond that we have to assume they don't intend to file and that's when we should be doing referrals but it shouldn't take six months speaker: i /paoerb that and i appreciate what life is like really on the ground /skpw taking responsibility for it. the back and forth of writing to somebody remains private and if they are tossing all the letters then we're stuck in a box where nothing is going to change, commissioner as a communications expert once you start communicating to a wider audience sometimes things crack loose where people respond differently so i think what you said is good. we might want to consider as a commission what we want to
4:19am
suggest as or at what point do we post this or not make the public have to ask for the list but make it available or do other things that wouldn't be terribly burden on some but it would make your letter stronger saying if we do not receive the form seven hundred by x and the fine you are now supposed to pay this is now what's going to happen. i don't know if these people would be embarrassed or feel awkward about it, i don't know. also, to think that our cities culture is to say we want people to do this and we will affect those that don't and given the hundreds of people that have filed that are not on this list there are folks who say do it, i did it and they might actually get it.
4:20am
speaker: understood speaker thank you chair: i want to thank the commission that for doing an excellent job posting the official misconduct document quickly and they were there relatively easy to find and thanks for keeping up with all that. speaker: we had an interesting day distributing those. chair: i imagine there was a little bit of paper: speaker: the cameras were enforced chair: you were being filmed door to door. is there any public comment? speaker: a couple things. on the dash board project and the
4:21am
posting of documents relating to the official conduct precedeings massy should be congratulated. he doesn't get credit but does a lot behind the scenes. i'm sure he's embarrassed but he really does do a lot of great work. on some other points i appreciate commissioners concern about non filers and i have said many times before this commission i would like to see on a regular basis whether it's monthly quarterly every six months but periodically a comprehensive list for everybody in a bad place whether it's for not filing forms, not paying fines,
4:22am
being overdue on penalties. with all due respect it's not just seven hundred forms but in some forms it's lobbyists, campaign consult ants and there are a lot of folks that get into a bad place and we've never had a comprehensive way to keep track of that. it would be great to have some form of mechanism to take care of that. as we see if page two of the directors report we're asking some success in getting folks off there but in the past month there hasn't been implemented. on that point item eight /khrudz an in couple bent member of the college board and i ask publicly if that person
4:23am
is reelected will he in this case be able to be certified as a candidate if he has overdue fines, forms, et cetera and if not, that's a great example of where we should be proactive in saying that's a problem and frankly if our laws allow this person and i have nothing against this person but someone in this status to file in reelection having overdue fines, forms, fees, pen al tease, we should adjust the laws so they can't do that. it's one thing if you are in office but if you are a candidate that's kind of a problem, i think, and again, having nothing to do with the individual but clearing things up so that are able to go forward, i think that's for the moment. thank you for the interesting long meeting.
4:24am
speaker: item ten, public comment? public comment appearing and not appearing in the agenda commission? meeting adjourned.
4:25am
good morning and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city operations and neighborhood service. my name is shawn elsbernd, chair. i'm joined by the vice chair, supervisor carmen chu, our clerk is derek evans. notice at the begining of the meeting a few minutes before 11:00 we will have to take a recess and we will be back hopefully no later than 11:30, so we will try to get as much done before that time as we can. just warning to all, and i apologize for that. mr. clerk, item one. >>the clerk: item one, ordinance amending code by repealing 12d.a.22 and amending 14b.18 to repeal provisions extending expiration of chapter 12d in event of injunction, versus san francisco and
4:26am
amending cross-reference to 421249 and 14b. >> christine is here to give us a brief intro on this. >> thank you, supervisors. this is a cleanup ordinance that has no effect on the city's current contracting practices. the contracting ordinance from 2003 was based on 2003 hearings and federal law makes clear our contracting ordinances that give race and gender preferences must be based on recent hearings. the law -- that chapter, 12d.a has been joined since 2004. the board in 2008 extended the expiration of the ordinance based on the injunction. four years later the ordinance still has been staid, injection not lifted. it is not very clear that the board would need new fact-finding to continue the ordinance in effect. this simply cleans thaup and clears the way for
4:27am
future fact-finding. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, closed. questions? move this forward with recommendation? >> so moved. >> we will make that the order without objection. mr. clerk, item 12. >> resolution determining the premises for transfer liquor license to -- 398-12th for the double rainbow. * >> mr. chair, supervisors, my name is mark rennie. i represent double rainbow llc. come on guys. who have made application for determination under 23958 of the business code that the issuance of a type
4:28am
48 liquor license to 398-12th street would serve public convenience and necessity of the city and county of san francisco. i would like to put in the record yesterday they had a little fundraiser across the street. here is approximately 500 original signatures that were added to the cause yesterday. i have previously put out -- if i could have the overhead for just a second. this is as of yesterday. at the folsom fair. * on saturday there was a new paint job on the eagle. and it is a unique san francisco institution. we were here while you guys were on vacation. it was quite a hearing. and there have been -- mike leon and alex montiel were
4:29am
the original purchasers of 100% interest in double rainbow llc. this is a corporation. there is basically no bank account, a secretary of state and abc filing. it was the intention of property owner to preserve the liquor license, not run into non-conforming use for letting it go too long. these -- as soon as this license transfers, mike and alex are going to go down to abc with me, get finger-printed, put in a new llc questionnaire and take over 100% ownership. they do have a lease. they are in positive sofasing these premises. it is approximately 4,500 square feet, half of it outside, which is what makes this place so beloved. it is a beautiful old garden. it was for 30 years. first the eagle, then the eagle tavern. during the 80s t